Should US wealth be redistributed?

[cercis]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Never? Or just not in our lifetimes?

I think poverty can be cured. And so many of the problems you name are a function of poverty.

You want Oklahoma? Methlabs are one of the most reliable sources of income and you never know where a new one is going to pop up. When I was a kid, marijuana was the top money crop and there were places you didn't drive or hike because if you went there you would never been seen again. Even police helicopters had to make forced landings from gunfire.

3 out of 5 Oklahoma kids are chronically hungry. What does that mean? It means their brains will never develop to their full potential because they aren't getting the nutrients they need. It means that when they are in school, they will be concentrating more on their hungry stomachs than the lesson.

Oklahoma schools are consistently in the bottom 5 of the states. And the rich schools aren't much better than the poor schools. Most Oklahoma schools are rural schools - with very small budgets. My history teachers were always coaches. Several years so were my science and english teachers. When they had to lay off teachers because of budget cuts, the non-coaches (and more qualified teachers) were laid off first.

In my class of 60, maybe 10 of us managed to get a college degree of any kind, much less a 4 year degree. One person went on to post graduate work (not me). 75% of my class were card-carrying American Indians. Half of my class were kids whose parents were so inept or so poor they couldn't care for them and they were living with grandparents or at a "boarding school" (to be fair, some of the kids at the "boarding school" were there because they wanted to go to a school where they wouldn't be a minority - http://www.choctawnation.com/Program...m?ProgramID=25 - the director, BTW was in a class before me). We didn't go on to college because we didn't have the skills to go to college. I was #3 in my class, tested very high on all the placement tests, etc and I struggled at the JUNIOR college. I'd never had to study before and didn't know how.

Sixty thousand is a wonderful living there. But very few people make it. My mom's worked at the same job for 15 years and makes $7/hour and that's considered a very good salary. The most I ever made, with a college degree and further certification, was $34k (which included the bonuses, etc). We moved from Oklahoma because we were never going to reach that $60k mark.

Can you provide proof that people in poverty who win the lottery end up back in poverty in one year?

[abowers]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Maybe you never see it in OK. It's a different kind of poverty though. In OK, money goes a lot further than it does in a major city or on a coast. Also, isn't OK a relatively good place to be poor? In OK, being poor doesn't mean you grew up in the midst of abuse, it doesn't mean your parents were taking drugs, it doesn't mean you lacked anything other than money.

But pay attention to places where it sucks to be poor. .

I'm not from Oklahoma, nor am I poor, but I have worked with at-risk children and teens in western NY, a mix of people from the worst areas of Rochester, the surrounding well-to-do suburbs, and even rural farming areas. There is never a good place to be poor. Abuse and drugs are not limited to urban areas: you can also find them in suburbs, as well as rural areas. Just because someone is in poverty in the midwest doesn't mean they have it better than someone in poverty in california.

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

These folks are beyond help.

I have no idea what the working poor would do with money. But there are so many folks beyond help, no amount of money could fix those problems.

Then why did the Poverty Rate DECLINE EVERY YEAR from 1993 through 2000, when taxes were raised on the top 1.2% of taxpayers, more than $600 billion of the Reagan/Bush federal debt was paid down, the Federal Minimum Wage was raised several times, and the Unemployment Rate fell to the lowest level in four decades ?

Then why did the Poverty Rate INCREASE EVERY YEAR over the last five calendar years, when there were four rounds of huge tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate, which created MASSIVE record federal budget deficits, the wages of the vast overwhelming majority of American workers went backwards every year over the last five calendar years, and the share of the working-age population working or actively seeking a job is at a nearly 17-YEAR LOW ?

Poverty does not happen in a vacuum.

#

[cercis]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Abuse and drugs are not limited to urban areas: you can also find them in suburbs, as well as rural areas.

I wanted to point out that I grew up in a rural area. When I refer to methlabs and marijuana, I mean rural.

Also, my county was listed as having one of the highest incest molestation rate and kids living with someone other than their parents because of abuse. We also have one of the highest rates of birth defects caused by drugs and alcohol.

Rural means that you can keep it hidden longer and you spend a lot of time being bored. When I was in HS there were 2 things to do (other than sit at home, which is what I did) booze and sex. With the booze add drugs.

[jnsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

80% of people who win the lottery in the US file for bankruptcy within
5 years. Bankrate.com, MSN money, Motley Fool and a whole host of
other respected finance sites have published this. They are highly likely
to be the victims of violent crimes and highly likely to commit
violent crimes. Google it.

[jnsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Yes, the Clinton Era was good.

But that doesn't mean that the problems we have now weren't under the surface the whole time. If we're to learn anything from the last five years, it's that throwing money at problems doesn't solve them. Isn't this why we're branded by the rest of the world as "stupid Americans?"

Also, does anyone really know if things got better as a result of taxing the rich rather that the emergence of the internet creating a more profitable enviornment for small businesses? It was called a tech boom, not a tax boom.

[cercis]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

You said 1 year and filing bankruptcy is not an indication of poverty.

I see bankruptcies all the time when people are not poverty stricken. People who have made good money their whole lives.

As for violent crime? Any one with money is highly likely to be victims of violent crime, especially when it's published that they have money. As for committing violent crime? Yeah, that's a function of a lot of things, and growing up in poverty is only part of it. And believe me, rich people commit violent crimes, but somehow it isn't published as much. I did a search on the court system in OK and was shocked at who had been prosecuted for various crimes.

Let me ask you on the bankruptcies - were they chap 7 or chap 13? It makes a difference.

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

But pay attention to places where it sucks to be poor. Pay attention to hip hop culture. Pay attention to people who just got out of jail. Pay attention to urban youth. Pay attention to the local drug dealer on the corner...

According to the Justice Department:

The majority of drug users are White and suburban. The majority of crime is committed by Whites. The majority of Violent Crime is committed by Whites.

Your views are skewed.

Yes, the Clinton Era was good. But that doesn't mean that the problems we have now weren't under the surface the whole time.

Nonsense.

Everything was going in opposite directions:

* During the first period, real wages were rising every year. During the second period, real wages were falling every year.

* During the first period, poverty was declining every year. During the second period, poverty increased every year.

* During the first period, shrinking federal budget deficits turned into surpluses. During the second period, federal budget surpluses turned into massive deficits.

* During the first period, unemployment fell as the national workforce expanded. During the second period, the Unemployment Rate fell as more jobless workers became the Long-term Unemployed, as the national workforce contracted.

If we're to learn anything from the last five years, it's that throwing money at problems doesn't solve them.

Exactly.

Throwing money at the Rich & Corporate has NEVER worked economically.

Also, does anyone really know if things got better as a result of taxing the rich rather that the emergence of the internet creating a more profitable enviornment for small businesses? It was called a tech boom, not a tax boom.

The economy turned in late 1993. There wasn’t widespread dial-up internet access until 1995-1996, and the internet economy was a tiny fraction of the overall national economy for years after that.

Not to mention, according to the IRS, the majority of the increased income tax revenue, which was used to pay down the federal debt, arose from the tax increases on that top 1.2% of taxpayers (who, by the way, also simultaneously increased their prosperity).

#

[jnsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

According to the Justice Department:

The majority of drug users are White and suburban. The majority of crime is committed by Whites. The majority of Violent Crime is committed by Whites.

Your views are skewed.





Nonsense.

Everything was going in opposite directions:

* During the first period, real wages were rising every year. During the second period, real wages were falling every year.

* During the first period, poverty was declining every year. During the second period, poverty increased every year.

* During the first period, shrinking federal budget deficits turned into surpluses. During the second period, federal budget surpluses turned into massive deficits.

* During the first period, unemployment fell as the national workforce expanded. During the second period, the Unemployment Rate fell as more jobless workers became the Long-term Unemployed, as the national workforce contracted.





Exactly.

Throwing money at the Rich & Corporate has NEVER worked economically.





The economy turned in late 1993. There wasn’t widespread dial-up internet access until 1995-1996, and the internet economy was a tiny fraction of the overall national economy for years after that.

Not to mention, according to the IRS, the majority of the increased income tax revenue, which was used to pay down the federal debt, arose from the tax increases on that top 1.2% of taxpayers (who, by the way, also simultaneously increased their prosperity).

#

I think you are skewing what was said as well as the statistics. The first comment is subject to a baseline fallacy. Of course whites do most of everything; there are more whites than there are of anyone else. Baseline fallacies are one reason why we can have two contradictory statistics in this country at once: while most people suffering of diabetes are white, blacks are more likely to become diabetic. That's because a small percentage of whites might actually include more people than a large percentage of blacks. You can check on that at the Office of Minority Health website. You thinly accuse me of racism, but I ask you what is more racist: ignoring de facto racism and pretending people don't have problems or blatantly pointing out that real problems exist that are completely independent of money?

The descriptive comments about the economy try turn correlation into causation. I have admitted that things were good in the Clinton era and things haven't been so hot during the Bush era. Enough about that already. During both eras there have been millions of changes and milestones that neither president were responsible for. It's probably more likely that one of these changes or milestones was more responsible for good times and bad times than any particular person. Will presidents try to take responsibility for these things? You bet, that's politics. But all of their claims don't really mean anything. Clinton was not really responsible for the tech boom and Bush is not really responsible for the fact that we haven't been attacked since 2001. Additionally economists believe that it take several months to years for any public policy to impact the ecomomy. Poor policy during the Reagan years dragged down the economy during the Bush years. It's more likely that the expense and stupidity of the Monica Lewinsky cr*and the near impeachment of the president caused the economic downturn five years ago. It's likely that the true expense of this war, the tax cuts for the rich and impact of Katrina may not be felt for many many years . . . maybe even when a Democrat, an Independent, a Libertarian is in office.

[jnsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Also, I'm not advocating throwing money at the rich. I'm advocating creating an enviornment condusive to small businesses. Affirm individualism in the middle class to fix problems at the community level, rather than throwing money at poor people on the national level and hoping everything will turn out ok.

[jnsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

You said 1 year and filing bankruptcy is not an indication of poverty.

I see bankruptcies all the time when people are not poverty stricken. People who have made good money their whole lives.

As for violent crime? Any one with money is highly likely to be victims of violent crime, especially when it's published that they have money. As for committing violent crime? Yeah, that's a function of a lot of things, and growing up in poverty is only part of it. And believe me, rich people commit violent crimes, but somehow it isn't published as much. I did a search on the court system in OK and was shocked at who had been prosecuted for various crimes.

Let me ask you on the bankruptcies - were they chap 7 or chap 13? It makes a difference.

Read the articles. Just google it. There aren't details about the bankruptcies, but I believe they were chapter 7s for the most part.

Actually people with less money are more likely to be victims of violent crime. I know this because people with less money are more likely to have PTSD than people with more money. PTSD is usually the result of being the victim of or witnessing a violent situation. Rates of PTSD in poor urban areas are more than comprable to rates of PTSD among soldiers who have just gotten back from war. Additionally people with PTSD due to violent crimes are more likely to become repeat crime victims.

Anyway, read the articles. These people say that their lives are worse after winning the lottery than it was before they won. Also, if EVERYONE who earns less than $8000 a year won the lottery, how long do you think it would take before 50% of these people or their progeny filed for bankruptcy? I think it would be wayyyyyyy less than 5 years.

[cercis]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You still believe everyone can either live the american dream or it's too late for them, so why should we even try.

I believe that we're creating two radically divided classes and are going to end up with massive revolt from the lower class.

I also believe that a large portion of our problems could be solved with 2 things - 1) good nutrition assured for everyone (our last school provided free breakfast to all the kids based on the idea that if it was free for all, no parent would be too embarrassed to apply for free or reduced meals) and 2) free medical care so that women can be taken care of while pg and so people can maintain their health from cradle to grave. People who are chronically malnutritioned and sick are going to be kept down.

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I think you are skewing what was said as well as the statistics.

I’m afraid not. You “think” wrong.

Of course whites do most of everything; there are more whites than there are of anyone else.

Which is why it is a MUCH larger problem for the nation.

You thinly accuse me of racism...

Not at all. No “thinly” accusation by me. Your use of code words, phrases, and false stereotypes is rather blatant.

I have admitted that things were good in the Clinton era and things haven't been so hot during the Bush era. Enough about that already.

Why, because it reinforces the point rather effectively ?

During both eras there have been millions of changes and milestones that neither president were responsible for. It's probably more likely that one of these changes or milestones was more responsible for good times and bad times than any particular person.

To the contrary, I think it exemplifies the importance of just who is at the helm of the ship of state.

Clinton was not really responsible for the tech boom

Never claimed he was, but the so-called “tech boom” was not responsible for the economy.

and Bush is not really responsible for the fact that we haven't been attacked since 2001.

That’s rather obvious, since there have been no terrorist attacks stopped in progress since the numerous ones prior to the Millennium.

Additionally economists believe that it take several months to years for any public policy to impact the ecomomy.

Those “economists” are documentably wrong.

Poor policy during the Reagan years dragged down the economy during the Bush years. It's more likely that the expense and stupidity of the Monica Lewinsky cr*and the near impeachment of the president caused the economic downturn five years ago.

Sorry, but no. Your chronology is way off.

The bogus attempt at impeachment was in ’98, the economy was strong through 2000. President Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any President since FDR, and Consumer Confidence was still at historic record high levels up until the November 2000 election.

It's likely that the true expense of this war, the tax cuts for the rich and impact of Katrina may not be felt for many many years . . . maybe even when a Democrat, an Independent, a Libertarian is in office.

They have already had quite an impact. For example, the "tax cuts for the rich" caused the switch from surplus to deficits beginning in 2001.

#

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Also, I'm not advocating throwing money at the rich. I'm advocating creating an enviornment condusive to small businesses. Affirm individualism in the middle class to fix problems at the community level

Translation: I got mine, screw you, everybody else, you’re on your own.

rather than throwing money at poor people on the national level and hoping everything will turn out ok.

As opposed to throwing FAR MORE money at Corporate America and the wealthy, which has already proven not to work ?

#

[Bruce Wayne]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I know VJW doesn't really like to listen to examples from across the pond but Britain is a highly taxed country similar to that advocated by him so is a useful example of what America could become.

The government here takes almost 50% of GDP in taxes, with the average individual taxed over 30% of their income each year. We have healthcare and education that is free at the point of service. Standards in both are falling whilst expenditure on management and administration has doubled in the past decade. The government continue to tax the private (wealth creating) sector to fund these schemes and is on the verge of sending the economy downhill fast as there is so little incentive to try and make money.

The welfare system is such that a couple with children can happily live with all modern conviniences without having to pay rent, tax or any of the other things working people are burdened with.

Public sector workers are being hired in their thousands to deflect from poor unemployment statistics and the government are awarding these workers above average pay and vastly superior pension schemes (private sector workers get a state pension at 68, public sector workers get it at 60!) that will burden the tax payer for decades to come.

The efficiency of the economy is dropping like a stone as the government pilfers money from the private sector and spends vast sums on inefficient public projects. The UK economy is now on a par with Europe, which also likes high tax policies, whilst the rest of the world speeds away from us in productivity and success.

And what do you get for the increased tax spend? In 1997 when Labour came into power you had free university education for all, free dental care, free eye tests. Now, despite tax doubling in the eight years since, students are charged £3,000 a year to attend university, dental care is effectively privatised and eye tests are very difficult to obtain. I'm happy to pay these fees myself but am much less happy to be taxed twice as much for services that are declining.

Voter turnout is dropping with the Labour victory this year achieved with less than 25% of the populations votes. Wealthy sectors of the UK (ie England) actually voted for the Conservative party but the poor sectors of Britain (Scotland, Wales etc.) bumped up the Labour vote to get them into office for another term.

We live in a system where you get officials you didn't vote for and don't listen to you deciding how much of your money you get to keep and how much of your money is spent on things you don't neccessarily need and don't neccessarily want.

Think very seriously before you follow our path.